D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

jasper said:

Jasper, "darn it Bugsy, I rolled a nat 20 on my deception, and a nat 20 on my persuasion against Tony the Ant. Card counting is legal"
Michael Spilotro, " Chill Jasper, we just taking for a little ride while we discuss metagaming with you.:

Click to expand...

Ha ha, wouldnt it be funny if the criminals got to decide what was legal.

Maxperson said:

It's only a grey area if it's possible for Jezal to know about trolls. Suppose Jezal grew up in the middle of a desert in a secret oasis where nobody left for fear of discovery. He was the first to get away. Trolls would be unknown in a place like that. There would be zero chance of troll knowledge being available to him. By ruling that he does not know about trolls, no options were removed from the player since that option was never available in the first place.

Click to expand...

Sure, a background could possibly specifically exclude such knowledge. It could also specifically allow such knowledge. These are the extremes, and not much use in the discussion.

However, even if a background specifically excludes such knowledge, wouldn't it be possible for the character (from a fictional standpoint) to have a eureka moment where he tries something out of the ordinary, and it works! Such a moment can only be had by a player who is as unfamiliar with the monster as the character is meant to be.

In other words, it is okay to hold a player's additional knowledge against him, but not allow it to benefit him. Doesn't that seem odd?

Maxperson said:

Absolutely. During those times a roll will happen. That's the rule. Knowledge is a skill. When the results of a skill are uncertain, you get a roll.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can understand the desire to go to a roll....and I've done that in these situations myself, for sure...I'm not so firmly on the "other side" in this.....but the roll will very likely leave you exactly where you started. With a player having to play his character in a way that is being influenced by the player's knowledge.

I know that you say it is easy to play with only the character's knowledge in mind...but I don't know if it's even possible. Because a player who is holding off on using fire until some moment where fire use is deemed appropriate.....his thinking is absolutely influenced by the player's knowledge. You're not getting a "pure" decision from him.

Do you agree with that?

Maxperson said:

No. If it certain that Jezal has no knowledge of trolls, then Tony never had the option to have that knowledge. It would be no different than my deciding that a wizard could not cast cleric spells. The option was never there, even if Tony does know the names of all the cleric spells and what they do.

Click to expand...

It's different. A wizard can't cast divine magic without multi-classing or taking a feat or some other option. Any character can conceivably pick up a burning brand from a firepit and use it to try and harm or scare off a monster. It's not a question of CAN the character do it, but WOULD the character do it?

Maxperson said:

It really depends on the person. For a lot of us immersion is fun in and of itself. If an encounter is fun or not fun, that's separate from immersion.

Click to expand...

Sure, that's my point. If an encounter is immersive, but not fun, then why not waive the requirement of immersion if it somehow increases the fun? Or at least moves things along quicker so that the game can get to something more fun?

Maxperson said:

Again, though, this is for you, not for everyone. The group I play with values immersion and character above all else. Encounter fun is important, too, but is separate from immersion, so the choice above is a false choice for my group. I really doubt my group is alone in this. Just as I really doubt you are alone in your views and preferences.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand that. I wouldn't say that either of us are "doing it wrong" as far as the playstyle. What I call into question is your seemingly absolute view on metagaming as cheating, when I feel that metagaming is unavoidable.

For example, you asked why would [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION]'s character grab the firebrand rather than reaching for his sword. You stated that the sword is objectively more damaging than the firebrand. However, how do we know that? Perhaps the firebrand was more readily at hand. Certainly speed would be an important factor in the character's decision of how to react. Determining that the character has time to draw his sword before he's killed, and that the sword does more damage, requires an awareness of the game mechanics....turns, initiative, damage, HP, etc. All of these are present in your decision making. Is that not metagaming?

The character doesn't know that he can survive a bite from such a creature....so why not use what is at hand rather than trying to draw his sword before the thing eats his face?

Maxperson said:

I dive deep into my character and what he knows, doesn't know, or is uncertain becomes almost second nature to me. I'm just not going to screw up and act on say, trolls being vulnerable to fire when my character is certainly not going to know about it. It will take me less than a second to figure it out, and if the answer is uncertain, I will convey to the DM why I should get a roll. If it is certain, my PC will act or not act on my personal knowledge, depending on which way that certainty went.

Click to expand...

I can follow that. So let's say all the players are in the same boat, and none of them tend to rely on fire based spells or attacks....so the chance of stumbling onto the secret is minimal at most.....how do you think things would play out? At what point does the troll die?

Maxperson said:

It's only a grey area if it's possible for Jezal to know about trolls. Suppose Jezal grew up in the middle of a desert in a secret oasis where nobody left for fear of discovery. He was the first to get away. Trolls would be unknown in a place like that. There would be zero chance of troll knowledge being available to him.

Click to expand...

Actually....that's a great example.

Let's say that's Jezal's background. Even though I am a dirty, low-down, good-for-nothing metagamer (and proud of it!) if I were playing Jezal then YES I would pretend to not know about trolls. His unique and specific background gives him a reason to not know about trolls. That makes it different, and thus interesting, and will therefore surprise the other people at the table when I do it (especially because, as noted, they all expect me to metagame), and will help bring his unique background to life.

If you assume that most adventurers don't know about trolls, on the other hand, then it becomes uninteresting material for roleplaying. If everybody is ignorant, then it doesn't add any depth or color to any of the characters who exhibit that ignorance. It would be like roleplaying getting dressed in the morning, or drinking water, or using a Scottish accent to play a Dwarf. Sure...I guess those are all examples of roleplaying, but...really?

And this extends to all our other examples. There may be some examples where metagaming is clearly a jerk move, but that doesn't mean that not metagaming is "good roleplaying". Not unless you also find a way to do it that adds depth to your character.

EDIT: Metagaming or not metagaming, being a jerk or not being a jerk, and roleplaying or not roleplaying, are all independent variables.

hawkeyefan said:

For example, you asked why would [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION]'s character grab the firebrand rather than reaching for his sword

Click to expand...

It's not really accurate to say that I was "asked" anything. It would be more accurate to say that I was 'told' what my reason was, and that any in-character reasoning no matter how well it fit my character was just me trying to "cover" for "cheating"

...all while my character did nothing that was actually impossible for him to do given his knowledge, circumstances, and capabilities, and couldn't be fairly judged as improbable or inconsistent because "If you have fire in your hand, but your weapon is somewhere nearby, which do you prefer using against unknown types of creatures?" wasn't one of the details about my character the DM asked for before play began.

Imaculata said:

Is trial and error fun?

Click to expand...

I guess the questions for me would be: Is trial and error fun when I already know the answer and how long do I try things that dont work before I try the thing that I know does work.

AaronOfBarbaria said:

"If you have fire in your hand, but your weapon is somewhere nearby, which do you prefer using against unknown types of creatures?" wasn't one of the details about my character the DM asked for before play began.

Click to expand...

If only he had asked for that detail, this tragedy might have been averted.

Once again we arrive at the conclusion that metagaming is all the DM's fault.

Elfcrusher said:

If only he had asked for that detail, this tragedy might have been averted.

Once again we arrive at the conclusion that metagaming is all the DM's fault.

Click to expand...

Yeah, or he could have had it be an ogre that was attacking the camp... me attacking an ogre with a log from the campfire my character is tending isn't metagaming.

Lanefan said:

The "heroes" don't - and probably shouldn't - always win.

Lanefan

Click to expand...

Who said that we have to play "heroes"? Maybe I want to be immersed in the fiction of being a person that does not want to be eaten by Trolls and would do everything realistically possible to avoid that.

A book by Jared Diamond about traditional tribes living in Africa talked about the reasons why the number of people killed by Lions is relatively low - not because Lions are not Dangerous but because the Tribesmen have so much experience and tactics dealing with Lions that they have been able to reduce their Lion related fatalities significantly. I do not see why the same would not be true for a Fantasy world that had Trolls.

AaronOfBarbaria said:

Yeah, or he could have had it be an ogre that was attacking the camp... me attacking an ogre with a log from the campfire my character is tending isn't metagaming.

Click to expand...

"An ogre bursts out of the darkness and attacks your camp!"
"I pick up a burning log and hit him."
"...."
"What?"
"It's really a troll; I was just saying 'ogre' so you wouldn't metagame. You must have known I was doing that, you dirty meta-metagamer."

Shasarak said:

A book by Jared Diamond about traditional tribes living in Africa talked about the reasons why the number of people killed by Lions is relatively low - not because Lions are not Dangerous but because the Tribesmen have so much experience and tactics dealing with Lions that they have been able to reduce their Lion related fatalities significantly. I do not see why the same would not be true for a Fantasy world that had Trolls.

Click to expand...

The loss of 90% of the lion population to poaching and habitat loss probably contributed to that as well.

So all we have to do is convince aristocrats in Kara-Tur that troll blood is an aphrodisiac, and all our problems will be solved.